# Man Mohan Swaroop v. State of U.P. Thru' Secy. Appointment Deptt. & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 218
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-28
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22510 of 2002
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Dinesh Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/man-mohan-swaroop-v-state-of-u-p-thru-secy-appointment-deptt-others-42103
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Deduction of pension-petitioner while
working as Special Land Acquisition
Officer-send proposal for compensation
by placing reliance on sale deed-on
objection by Board of Revenue-amended
proposal send-which was enhanced by
reference
proceeding-disciplinary
proceeding the conclusion drawn by
authority-held-wholly
misconceivedonce the initial amount as proposed by
petitioner-stood confirmed by District
Judge-order of deduction of 10 %
pension by disciplinary Authority on
probability
and
assumption
not
sustainable-direction
to
give
entire
withheld amount with 8 % interest
given.

Held: Para 7

From the facts stated above, it is clear
that initially a proposal was sent by the
petitioner to the Board of Revenue and
after advice of the Board of Revenue
another exemplar was applied and a
revised award was sent as per direction
of the Board of Revenue. It is also
important to mention here that the said
award was challenged subsequently by
the claimants before the District Judge
and the District Judge in reference under
section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
enhanced the award to Rs.5/- per square
yard which was initially submitted by the
petitioner. Thus, in fact there was no loss
to
the
government.
It
is
only
hypothetical observation of the enquiry
officer that if the proposal of the
petitioner was accepted by the Board of
Revenue there would be a loss to the
government. While, in fact the award as
proposed by the petitioner was approved
by the District Judge u/s. 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the whole
enquiry and the order of the disciplinary
authority
was
based
merely
on
probability and imagination and the
deduction of 10% pension was illegal
and not sustainable in law.

## Text

218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

of enquiry provided in the rules applicable
to such employees of UPSRTC and not
otherwise.

17. In view of above, the impugned
order cannot sustain. The writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated
30.05.1991 (Annexure 7 to the writ
petition) is hereby quashed.

18. However this order shall not
preclude the respondents from passing a
fresh order in accordance with law after
making such enquiry as prescribed in law.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI,J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22510 of 2002

Man Mohan Swaroop

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Appointment
Deptt. & Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Deduction of pension-petitioner while
working as Special Land Acquisition
Officer-send proposal for compensation
by placing reliance on sale deed-on
objection by Board of Revenue-amended
proposal send-which was enhanced by
reference
proceeding-disciplinary
proceeding the conclusion drawn by
authority-held-wholly
misconceivedonce the initial amount as proposed by
petitioner-stood confirmed by District
Judge-order of deduction of 10 %
pension by disciplinary Authority on
probability
and
assumption
not
sustainable-direction
to
give
entire
withheld amount with 8 % interest
given.

Held: Para 7

From the facts stated above, it is clear
that initially a proposal was sent by the
petitioner to the Board of Revenue and
after advice of the Board of Revenue
another exemplar was applied and a
revised award was sent as per direction
of the Board of Revenue. It is also
important to mention here that the said
award was challenged subsequently by
the claimants before the District Judge
and the District Judge in reference under
section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
enhanced the award to Rs.5/- per square
yard which was initially submitted by the
petitioner. Thus, in fact there was no loss
to
the
government.
It
is
only
hypothetical observation of the enquiry
officer that if the proposal of the
petitioner was accepted by the Board of
Revenue there would be a loss to the
government. While, in fact the award as
proposed by the petitioner was approved
by the District Judge u/s. 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the whole
enquiry and the order of the disciplinary
authority
was
based
merely
on
probability and imagination and the
deduction of 10% pension was illegal
and not sustainable in law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.)

1. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner seeking a writ of
mandamus directing respondent no.3 to
decide the review/representation of the
petitioner dated 16.08.1996 as also to
issue writ of certiorari quashing the
1 All] Man Mohan Swaroop V. State of U.P. Thru' Secy. Appointment Deptt. & others

219
orders dated 25.9.1986 and 30.6.1992
passed by the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are
that the petitioner was appointed as Naib
Tehsildar
on
11.03.1950;
that
the
petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar in
the year 1956 and was subsequently
confirmed on the said post in the year
1961; that the petitioner was given
charge of Deputy Collector and was
confirmed on the said post in the year
1974; that on 5.6.1984 a charge sheet
was served on the petitioner levelling the
only charge that when he was posted as
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra
in the year 1975-78 some land was a
acquired for 220 KV sub station and for
staff quarters and while preparing the
award in case No.268, 270 and 279 the
sale deed dated 5.8.1974 was taken as
exemplar and submitted the proposal of
award to the Board of Revenue for a sum
of
Rs.11,93,699.25
paise;
that
on
objection by the Board of Revenue
subsequently another proposal was made
by the petitioner as directed by the Board
of Revenue and sent the same for
approval
for
an
amount
of
Rs.6,30,550.37 paise; that on 17.06.1984
the Regional Food Commissioner, Agra
was appointed Enquiry Officer who
called explanation of the petitioner; that
on 25.06.1984 the petitioner demanded
the relevant documents relating to the
case, which were not given to him ; that
on 27.08.1984 an interim explanation
was submitted by the petitioner to the
Enquiry Officer annexing therewith the
photostat copies of the judgment of
L.A.Case No.70 of 1978 decided by Vith
A.D.J., Agra on 9.3.1984 and L.A.Case
No.48 of 1978 decided by Vth A.D.J.
Agra on 7.10.1983; that on 25.9.1986
respondent no.2 passed an order of
reduction of pension of the petitioner by
10%
against
which
the
petitioner
preferred an appeal which was rejected
on 30.6.1992. The petitioner filed a
review application but no decision has
been taken on the same.

4. The petitioner's contention is that
the punishment has been made merely on
probability; the award proposed was
subject to approval of the Board of
Revenue as per government order; on the
objection of the Board of Revenue the
petitioner revised the award as per
directions and as such there was no misconduct on his part; that the impugned
order is arbitrary and illegal; that the
enquiry conducted against the petitioner
was against the provisions of Article 21
of the Constitution as no reasonable
opportunity was given and that the
punishment given to the petitioner
deducting 10% of pension is illegal as
the District Judge in reference u/s. 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act made award @
Rs.5/- per sq. yard which was initially
proposed by the petitioner to the Board
of Revenue for approval and the said
order has become final as no appeal was
filed by the State.

5. The respondents have denied the
allegations and submitted that no ground
was made out by the petitioner and the
enquiry was conducted after giving full
opportunity
to
the
petitioner
and
thereafter
the
impugned
order
of
punishment was passed. The appeal filed
by the petitioner being treated as
representation
(as
no
appeal
was
maintainable) was also rejected by a
reasoned order.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

6. We are unable to accept the
contention raised by learned counsel for
the respondents.

7. From the facts stated above, it is
clear that initially a proposal was sent by
the petitioner to the Board of Revenue
and after advice of the Board of Revenue
another exemplar was applied and a
revised award was sent as per direction of
the Board of Revenue. It is also important
to mention here that the said award was
challenged subsequently by the claimants
before the District Judge and the District
Judge in reference under section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, enhanced the
award to Rs.5/- per square yard which
was initially submitted by the petitioner.
Thus, in fact there was no loss to the
government. It is only hypothetical
observation of the enquiry officer that if
the proposal of the petitioner was
accepted by the Board of Revenue there
would be a loss to the government. While,
in fact the award as proposed by the
petitioner was approved by the District
Judge u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Therefore, the whole enquiry and the
order of the disciplinary authority was
based
merely
on
probability
and
imagination and the deduction of 10%
pension was illegal and not sustainable in
law.

8. In view of the above discussions,
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The
orders
dated
25.09.1986
and
30.6.1992 passed by respondent no.1 are
hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed not to deduct 10% of the pension.
The respondents are further directed to
refund 10% deducted amount of pension
to the petitioner along with simple interest
at the rate of 8% per annum.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE P.K.SINGH BAGHEL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23256 of 2008

Lalit Prasad Shukla

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. &
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandan Sharma
Sri Shrikrishna Shukla
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Ram Mohan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

U.P.
Govt.
Servants
(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Rules
1999-Disciplinary
proceeding-without giving the copy of
enquiry
report
without
following
procedure given in Rule-Held-complete
goby of Natural Justice-not sustainableorder impugned quashed with liberty to
initiate conduct disciplinary proceeding
in accordance with Rules.

Held: Para 12 and 13

A perusal of the enquiry report would
indicate that the Enquiry Officer has
relied only on the documentary evidence.
No witness was called to prove those
documents neither any oral evidence
was adduced by the Department as
stated above. Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules
gives
the
detailed
procedure
for
imposing major penalties.

Once an Enquiry Officer was appointed
and full fledged enquiry was held it was
obligatory on the part of the disciplinary
authority to follow procedure laid down
under Rule 7 of 1999 Rules. As initially
the enquiry was initiated for imposing